TheRPGSite

The question came up in the atheism myths thread about the ethics of childbearing. Here's the general direction it took:

Quote from: John MorrowWe live in an age where reproduction is fairly well understood and can be stopped through fairly basic sterilization procedures. Do you think that any adult that understands this yet fails to act on it is irresponsible, cruel, and even sadistic? And if every adult did act on it, do you think that would be a good thing? Forget blaming people for it. Do you think the world would be better off if no human beings reproduced?

Quote from: MeI think it would be a vastly better place if fewer people reproduced.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd who are the people who shouldn't be reproducing?

Quote from: Dominus NoxHmmm, how about people who've abused or neglected children? Or how about people who've used drugs or alcohol during pregnancy and messed up their babies? How about people with habitual violent criminal records?

Those'd be good choices, AFAIC.

Quote from: John MorrowAre you going to prohibit them from having children? Is it irresponsible, cruel, and even sadistic to let them have children since we can stop them?

Quote from: Me, in response to the earlier questionThe people who 1) aren't ready for children and/or 2) can't support children.

In response to John's most recent question, I'd definitely prohibit people from having children if I could. I think there should at the very least be an age limit and a test you have to pass. I'd also be in favor of some sort of monetary prerequisite for having kids, to make sure that children aren't born to people that can't afford them.

Oh.  Oh, dear.  I've participated in threads like this before.  I sincerely hope the results of this one turn out better.

!i!

It's totally okay to have a child that grows up to be, like, Martin Luther King or Gandhi or Joss Whedon or like that.  After all, every sperm is sacred!

But it's horribly immoral to have a child that grows up to be, like, Ted Bundy or Charles Manson.  Shoulda used protection, you jerk!

Simply, really!  If you want to be a good parent, have good kids. :D

Ian, did you want to participate, or just play Cassandra? :)

James:  What an interesting topic!  This should allow for hours of autofellatio by our resident philosophers!

Thanks for remaining a sure sign that a thread is waste of my motherfucking time.

LOVE

FG :)

So why bother posting if it's such a waste? Or is it that you're just begging for a waste of your time to come along so you can act muy macho while wasting your time?

It wasn't my topic, someone else (John Morrow I believe) brought it up and I transplanted it here at Akrasia's request.

Did you have anything to say about the topic, or are you too busy feeling superior about not posting in time wasting threads that you just posted in?

I honestly believe the potential damage caused by letting any government decide who should be allowed to bear children is much much worse than our present stance. Come to think of it I wouldn't trust myself to make decisions like this.

No love for my post, James? :(

Quote from: James McMurrayIn response to John's most recent question, I'd definitely prohibit people from having children if I could. I think there should at the very least be an age limit and a test you have to pass. I'd also be in favor of some sort of monetary prerequisite for having kids, to make sure that children aren't born to people that can't afford them.

Is this a quest to eradicate poor people?

I kinda figured you were being facetious. :)

I agree that yes, having great kids makes it much easier to be considered a great parent.

Quote from: Garry GI honestly believe the potential damage caused by letting any government decide who should be allowed to bear children is much much worse than our present stance. Come to think of it I wouldn't trust myself to make decisions like this.

I'm sure there are better qualified people than myself to make the decision, but it's one that really needs to be made. The human race is growing at an amazing race. As we get bigger and bigger the balancing imperatives in nature that stop species from getting to large are going to have to get nastier and nastier.

Our advances in medical technology combined with our undisputed standing at the top of the food chain means we've got very few means of population control that don't involve plague and/or interspecies violence. Unless we curb the growth we'll eventually hit a point of no return where the only way we can survive is to escape the planet to free up more real estate or some cataclysmic event drops the population to a more managable level.

Likewise there are people who quite frankly are not fit to raise children. These are people for whom their children wind up abused, abandoned, or worse. These are people who cannot psychologically or physically care forr children and they become drains on society which usually grow up to give birth to another generation of drains.

Quote from: One Horse TownIs this a quest to eradicate poor people?

Well they clearly don't deserve kids.

Quote from: One Horse TownIs this a quest to eradicate poor people?

No. It's a quest to avoid having people give birth to children they can't afford.

Quote from: James McMurrayI kinda figured you were being facetious. :)

Not really, no.

Quote from: James McMurrayI agree that yes, having great kids makes it much easier to be considered a great parent.

And having happy kids, too, of course.

It seems to me that all of your criteria on who should and should not have children is aimed at making it more likely that people who have children will have happy, virtuous children who contribute to society.

If you knew that a kid was going to grow up poor and deprived, but even so he'd be happy and contribute to society (a situation well known to each of the waves of immigrants who have successively poured into our country) would that knowledge make a difference in terms of whether it was virtuous to bear that child?

Quote from: James McMurrayI'm sure there are better qualified people than myself to make the decision, but it's one that really needs to be made. The human race is growing at an amazing race. As we get bigger and bigger the balancing imperatives in nature that stop species from getting to large are going to have to get nastier and nastier.

I'me going to need you to identify who these better qualified people are, why they are better qualified otherwise I can't place any trust in them.

Quote from: James McMurrayOur advances in medical technology combined with our undisputed standing at the top of the food chain means we've got very few means of population control that don't involve plague and/or interspecies violence. Unless we curb the growth we'll eventually hit a point of no return where the only way we can survive is to escape the planet to free up more real estate or some cataclysmic event drops the population to a more managable level.

This is an old argument about something that keeps not happening and I don't worry about much as the population of my country is actually falling.

Quote from: James McMurrayLikewise there are people who quite frankly are not fit to raise children. These are people for whom their children wind up abused, abandoned, or worse. These are people who cannot psychologically or physically care forr children and they become drains on society which usually grow up to give birth to another generation of drains.

Once again I need to know who decides who are fit and not and how you intend to enforce such measures. If you want to give control of your basic biological processes over to a government you'd better be very careful.

Quote from: James McMurrayNo. It's a quest to avoid having people give birth to children they can't afford.

That still manages to eradicate poor people whilst ignoring the vast amount of fine people who came from incredibly poor backgrounds. Nice one.

Quote from: James McMurrayNo. It's a quest to avoid having people give birth to children they can't afford.

What is the difference there except for words that are put in a slightly different manner?

How do you think we have grown as a species? What do you think is necessary to bring up a child? Is it only money?

QuoteIf you knew that a kid was going to grow up poor and deprived, but even so he'd be happy and contribute to society (a situation well known to each of the waves of immigrants who have successively poured into our country) would that knowledge make a difference in terms of whether it was virtuous to bear that child?

Of course it would. And as soon as I become omniscient that'll matter.

QuoteI'me going to need you to identify who these better qualified people are, why they are better qualified otherwise I can't place any trust in them.

I can't identify them. I said I'm sure they're out there, not that I know who they are. If this idea ever came close to becoming a reality I'd concern myself with finding these people.

QuoteWhat is the difference there except for words that are put in a slightly different manner?

The difference is that saying I want to eradicate poor people completely misses the point of the topic. Stopping procreation in certain instances won't eradicate poor people, it'll just stop some of them from having children.

QuoteIs it only money?

If I did I wouldn't have said "These are people who cannot psychologically or physically care forr children and they become drains on society which usually grow up to give birth to another generation of drains."

The U.S. government and many others already have systems in place that will take children away from unfit parents. I'm just advocating a more proactive system that checks for fitness before the kids are neglected, abused, or worse.

Hell, if you can show me that poor peoples' children being a drain on society is a good thing I'll even drop the monetary prereqs and screen only for psychological acceptability.

Quote from: James McMurrayOf course it would. And as soon as I become omniscient that'll matter.

Yep.  It's a gamble, and nobody knows how it's going to come out.  So all this talk about preventing people from having children they can't afford only makes sense on the statistical level:  It's obvious nonsense on the individual level.  Every child has a chance to grow up happy, healthy and productive no matter what their starting circumstances.  The chance may be vanishingly slim, but it's a chance.

The question becomes (at least to my mind):  Is it okay to take away people's right to take that risk on behalf of their children and themselves?  Is it okay to take away their dream that if they had a child they'd somehow kick that drug habit, get a good job, make ends meet ... they'd do all that for their child?

Because, y'know, some people do.  Some people are redeemed by the act of having a child.  And if there's any chance that can happen, I think it's awfully hard to justify taking the right to take that chance away from a person.

Quote from: James McMurrayNo. It's a quest to avoid having people give birth to children they can't afford.

I'll re-quote this then. By your definition, large proportions of the populations of 1st world countries, let alone African or Asian populations, shouldn't have children. Afford is the key word here.

Do you, by any chance have children? What is the cut-off point as to what constitutes a couple able to afford children? Who decides it?

Do you even understand what you are saying? Were you born to a professional couple or were they labourers, cotton pickers, farmers? Do you even understand the consequences of poverty?

Should i exist?

Quote from: TonyLBYep.  It's a gamble, and nobody knows how it's going to come out.  So all this talk about preventing people from having children they can't afford only makes sense on the statistical level:  It's obvious nonsense on the individual level.

Governments work on the statistical level.

QuoteThe question becomes (at least to my mind):  Is it okay to take away people's right to take that risk on behalf of their children and themselves?  Is it okay to take away their dream that if they had a child they'd somehow kick that drug habit, get a good job, make ends meet ... they'd do all that for their child?

Yes it is. If they really want a child they can do what it takes to become worthy of the privilege.

QuoteBecause, y'know, some people do.  Some people are redeemed by the act of having a child.

Yep, and most aren't. Most drug addicted parents raise drug addicted children.

QuoteBy your definition, large proportions of the populations of 1st world countries, let alone African or Asian populations, shouldn't have children.

That depends. If they can raise them some other way (agriculture for instance) then fine.

QuoteDo you, by any chance have children?

I have three children. My oldest daughter was born when I was 17 and her mom 18. Her mom now also has 3 other children and is on welfare (has been for 14 years).

My other two children my wife and I waited to have until I'd graduated college so we could afford them. We were also in our late twenties at the time and much more mature and child ready.

QuoteWhat is the cut-off point as to what constitutes a couple able to afford children? Who decides it?

I have no idea what the cutoff point is. I'd leave the exact numbers up to people with experience in those areas. My guess is that if you're already on welfare or having a child will force you to be, then you'll have to wait until your situations improves.

QuoteWere you born to a professional couple or were they labourers, cotton pickers, farmers?

My mom and dad were both poor and divorced. My dad worked tons of different jobs to support us kids when he had us. My mom has been a bartender and a bar manager all her life, working hard to support us when she had us. They most definitely deserved to have children.

QuoteDo you even understand the consequences of poverty?

I grew up in a neighborhood with more illegal immigrants than ants. I've been homeless. I've been a drug addict and I've been an alcoholic. I know pretty well the perils of poverty.

QuoteShould i exist?

I have no idea. Outside of a few posts on the internet I have no idea who you are. You seem like a nice enough guy, so my tentative answer would be yes, but if you turn out to be a drug fiending child rapist I'll of course change my mind.

Quote from: James McMurrayMy mom and dad were both poor and divorced. My dad worked tons of different jobs to support us kids when he had us. My mom has been a bartender and a bar manager all her life, working hard to support us when she had us. They most definitely deserved to have children.

I grew up in a neighborhood with more illegal immigrants than ants. I've been homeless. I've been a drug addict and I've been an alcoholic. I know pretty well the perils of poverty.

I guess we have more in common than i thought. :cool:

I still can't agree with your point of view though. Maybe we both would not have existed if there was some monetary measurement by which prospective parents were judged by.

You're making a statement then hiding behind vague generalities to hide that it's unworkable.

Quote from: James McMurray... The human race is growing at an amazing race...

Not really.  Populations in most Western countries will actually start declining in the near future due to low rates of childbirth (well under the minimum 'replacement rate' of 2.1 children per couple in most countries in Western Europe).  Even population growth in developing countries is slowing down.  All things being equal, the wealthier a country becomes, the less kids people tend to have.

Based on current demographic trends, the global population should stabilize around 10 billion in 2050 (assuming that lifespans don't increase dramatically by that time).  The planet can easily support that, especially as technology continues to improve and make better use of renewable resources.

Quote from: James McMurrayGovernments work on the statistical level.

When we, as citizens, allow them to ... yes.

Quote from: James McMurrayYes it is. If they really want a child they can do what it takes to become worthy of the privilege.

That's not how it works.  You don't become worthy and then get your second chance.  You get your second chance, and then you try to become worthy of it.  The quality of mercy is not strained, it droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven.

Quote from: Garry GYou're making a statement then hiding behind vague generalities to hide that it's unworkable.

I never said I had a fully functioning system ready to be put into place. I asid I'd support such a system but can't design it myself. If that means I'm hiding then I'm fine with that idea.

QuoteBased on current demographic trends, the global population should stabilize around 10 billion in 2050 (assuming that lifespans don't increase dramatically by that time). The planet can easily support that, especially as technology continues to improve and make better use of renewable resources.

Great. Then my idea won't be needed to reduce planetary pressures. It's not like it would be passed anyway. :)

I'd still be concerned about people not having what it takes to raise kids having those kids, and still want them stopped.

QuoteThat's not how it works. You don't become worthy and then get your second chance. You get your second chance, and then you try to become worthy of it. The quality of mercy is not strained, it droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven.

Sure, it's not how it works now, but under my system that's how it would work. I personally think that if someone isn't worthy of having a child they shouldn't have one.

Quote from: James McMurrayIan, did you want to participate, or just play Cassandra? :)

Both, honestly.  I'm sorry -- it was a bit of a threadcrap to pop in with the first response and predict doom.  However, my experience with such threads is that they get totally derailed by, first, those without children deriding those with childre, then those with deriding those without.

As far as the ethics of bearing children goes, I'm not sure that the ethics differ that greatly from the ethics of doing just about anything else.  You exist, here and now.  You are as entitled to your share of available resources as anyone else (which is to say, not at all), and are responsible to not take away more than what you're entitled to (which, again is to say, none at all).  From that opening statement, each individual is tasked with reconciling their desires and actions with those of their neighbors.

Moving right along, my wife and I made a conscious decision to have no more than two children.  We got lucky -- we had a boy and a girl, one to replace each of us once we pass on.  We figured, ethically, that was all we were entitled to.  Originally, we thought that the preferred ethical decision was to adopt one child for every child we bore ourselves, but that proved economically beyond our means at the time.

Across the street, there's a family of home-schooling, flag-waving, born-again Christians.  They just had their seventh child.  My wife and I both thought that was ethically wrong and selfish of them.  Next door are our friends from Cambodia who had seven children, and we don't have a problem with their decision.  Why?  First, the nextdoor neighbors are our friends -- we don't like the folks across the street too much.  Second, our Cambodian friends made their choice in a place where the social expectations of child bearing were different, and at a time (during the US war in Viet Nam) when they honestly didn't expect all of their children to survive (and it's a miracle that they did -- you should hear the story about the birth of their seventh child!).  Meanwhile, our neighbors across the street are having their children here and now, in a place and in a social climate where we feel they have no need of so many children and that they should know better.  Third, beyond cultural pressures and lack of emphasis on birth control, our Cambodian friends didn't seem to have had any particular motive for having so many kids.  Our neighbors across the street, we're pretty sure, are motivated by religious and political goals to outbreed their competitors.

Is our decision to favor one versus the other right and fair?  Probably not.  We're more forgiving of one because they're our friends and were part of what we consider more forgivable circumstances.  It's also worth noting that, to my knowledge, none of our friends' seven children have borne more than two children themselves, now that they are living in a social climate that de-emphasises the need to procreate prolifically.

!i!

Thanks for coming back. :) I agree with pretty much everything you said there. I'd prefer tighter guidelines than "we like them" but country of origin and need for children would certainly play a factor. "God told me not to wear a condom" would not.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'd prefer tighter guidelines than "we like them"...

Ethics is a messy business and, sadly, we're selfish beings.

!i!

Which is why so many ethics choices get legistlated.

Quote from: James McMurraySure, it's not how it works now, but under my system that's how it would work. I personally think that if someone isn't worthy of having a child they shouldn't have one.

No, what I'm saying is that that's not how the world works, the same way I'd correct you if you said that two plus two is five.

Mercy that you have to earn isn't mercy, it's justice.   A second chance that you earn isn't a second chance, it's you having succeeded at your first chance.

Governments are very good at being merciless, and at denying people second chances.  Governments deal with figures, rather than people, statistics rather than hope.

Keeping hope alive, even for those furthest gone, is not the job of the government, but it is our job as citizens and human beings.  That is why we choose to rein in the government, to say "Upon this ground you will not tread, for in this plot we hope for unlikely blooms."

Restricting the right of anyone to better themselves is an act of despair.  Advocating such restrictions is a philosophy of despair.  I oppose both in absolute terms.  To feel despair is natural but to act upon it is a failing, and to institutionalize it is a sin.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaEthics is a messy business and, sadly, we're selfish beings.

You know, I'd like to qualify this statment, or change it, rather.

We're worried beings.  Worried that if we don't take as much as we need -- or simply can -- right now, that we'll be left with too little or none at all later on.  We're reactive beasts that forget that we're able to think rather than just respond.  We're worried little things that fear the truth -- that no one of us is inherently any better or more important than another.

And that's why so many ethical choices are legislated.

!i!

Children are a disposable resource. We know where they come from and we have a nearly infinite supply of them under even fairly extreme conditions.

We can always get more.  This current fetishization of children is harmful, as in order to transform them from a disposable asset into a functional member of a society is inherently a destructive process, not unlike smelting ores to get rid of impurities.  Try forging your sword/plowshare out of unrefined ore sometime... yet here we are coddling these proto-beings so that they can grow into unrefined 'adults' who will ultimately fail... as a collective, to function as a society.

Luckily, none of that stops THEM from getting more children out which can start over after the inevitable collapse (and subsequent refinement by force) of this now 'adult' society.  It is a self correcting situation, it just sucks to be on the pendulum when it swings back...



:what:

QuoteNo, what I'm saying is that that's not how the world works,

Yeah, and I replies that's how my world would work.

QuoteMercy that you have to earn isn't mercy, it's justice. A second chance that you earn isn't a second chance, it's you having succeeded at your first chance.

I guess we were raised differently. When I was sent to my room for being a punk I didn't get let out while still being a punk and told "your second chance starts now" while my mom patiently hoped for me to stop screaming at her. I was sent to my room and let out when my time was up and I'd calmed down, i.e. when I'd earned my second chance.

QuoteKeeping hope alive, even for those furthest gone, is not the job of the government, but it is our job as citizens and human beings.

This is a totally different discussion. I'd love to have it, but in it's own thread.

QuoteRestricting the right of anyone to better themselves is an act of despair. Advocating such restrictions is a philosophy of despair. I oppose both in absolute terms. To feel despair is natural but to act upon it is a failing, and to institutionalize it is a sin.

I'm not talking about restricting someone's right to better themselves. What I'm talking about is giving people that want to have kids a reason to better themselves.

QuoteWe're worried little things that fear the truth -- that no one of us is inherently any better or more important than another.

This is complete and utter tripe. Different people are most definitely better than one another. I know for a fact I'm better than people like Jeffrey Dahmer or a child molesting priest. You can lump yourself in with the human refuse if you want, but don't try to drag me into your cesspool.

Quote from: James McMurrayThis is complete and utter tripe. Different people are most definitely better than one another. I know for a fact I'm better than people like Jeffrey Dahmer or a child molesting priest. You can lump yourself in with the human refuse if you want, but don't try to drag me into your cesspool.

I believe you mis-read, and I thin you over-reacted.  I specifically wrote "No one of us is inherently[/u] better or more important than another."  None of us arrives in this veil of tears with any innate and superior purpose than any other.  It's what happens to us after we're born that determines relative value.  Unless, of course, by implying that some people are "human refuse" from birth, you're venturing into Nox-land.

!i!

Ah, I did misunderstand. Nevermind. I agree that we're born equal, but that sorting process starts pretty early.

Child rearing is too important a task to be left in the hands of those who have no children.

Quote from: James McMurrayYeah, and I replies that's how my world would work.

But you're not explaining how your world would work in any way whatsoever. I feel harping on a bit but you seem to want to hand peoples right to child-rearing to your government based on the idea that somebody there will surely know what what they're doing. You see the basic problem with talking about the ethics of stuff like this is working out who decides what is right or wrong. A good example can be seen in medical ethics which has spent the last 20 years moving away from a doctor knows best approach to one which heavily incolves patients, their families and other professionals.

Like I've said several times, I don't have a working model. I'm not qualified to create one. I would support a working model, created by someone who is qualified. And no, I don't know who that is.

Quote from: James McMurrayLike I've said several times, I don't have a working model. I'm not qualified to create one. I would support a working model, created by someone who is qualified. And no, I don't know who that is.

Do you understand why for me that means there's no real base to what you're saying? You're trying to have an ethical argument with no real ethical position to argue.

Quote from: mythusmageChild rearing is too important a task to be left in the hands of those who have no children.

And I think people with children are too close to the situation at hand to make rational decsions about society.

Quote from: Garry GDo you understand why for me that means there's no real base to what you're saying? You're trying to have an ethical argument with no real ethical position to argue.

My position is "some people don't deserve to have children, let's take that right away from them."

At some level of psychological instability, fiscal irresponsibility, sexual depredation, etc. a person loses the ability to raise a child properly. When that level is reached, we should take away their ability to have children.

Quote from: James McMurrayIf I did I wouldn't have said "These are people who cannot psychologically or physically care forr children and they become drains on society which usually grow up to give birth to another generation of drains."

[...]

Hell, if you can show me that poor peoples' children being a drain on society is a good thing I'll even drop the monetary prereqs and screen only for psychological acceptability.

By "drain", I assume you mean economic - that is, money. "Poor people cost me money!" Well, actually, not really.

Rich people cost society money. They demand and receive tax breaks, subsidies for their businesses and means of transport. Here in Australia, for example, government funding for "private" schools is twice that, per student, for "public" schools, four-wheel-drives (SUVs) are exempt from many taxes, dropping the price by $15,000 per vehicle (for which you could buy one middle-classed person's vehicle, or 3-8 working/unemployed class people's vehicles). The top 20% of the country earn 50% of the country's income, but pay only 10% of the taxes. The most profitable industry in Australia, mining, receives several billion in subsidies (and would be profitable still without them) and tax breaks, while the poorest people - the Aboriginals - have programmes to assist them of some tens of millions.

In our current society in the West, the rich are a drain on society, while the poor cost very little at all.

So if you think that people who are a financial "drain" on society should be prevented from having children, you'd best cut the balls off the rich.

I don't see any rich people on welfare, which if you noticed was the only real measurement of monetary worth that I gave.

Quote from: James McMurrayMy position is "some people don't deserve to have children, let's take that right away from them."

At some level of psychological instability, fiscal irresponsibility, sexual depredation, etc. a person loses the ability to raise a child properly. When that level is reached, we should take away their ability to have children.

I'm not even quite sure how you define any of your three examples so it's tough to know what you mean. Let's look at them,

Psychological instability to me means neurosis at worst so this would mean that somebody with neurotic depression, pretty light and probably not even needing medication.

Fiscal responsibility leaves me a bit confused especially since most people are pretty heavily in debt.

Sexual depradation is another weird one. What do you mean?

You're position is far too vague to be anything approaching ethical. Should George Bush decide who get's to have kids? How about Castro, Putin, Blair or Chavez.

Quote from: James McMurrayI don't see any rich people on welfare, which if you noticed was the only real measurement of monetary worth that I gave.

So if someone on welfare gets $10,000 in unemployment benefits, that's worth more than if someone who's a CEO gets a tax cut of $10,000?

So in other words, this isn't about how much money is given to people by private or public hands, but about kicking people on welfare?

Well, I guess everyone needs a hobby.

The sense of middle-classed entitlement in this thread is overwhelming. Where's that commie droog when we need him?

Quote from: James McMurrayMy position is "some people don't deserve to have children, let's take that right away from them."

And my position is "You can't tell who's going to be a good parent, so you aren't justified in stealing people's right to try."

The government could proactively imprison people who are in a demographic that makes them likely criminals.  The government could refuse education to people who are in a demographic that makes them likely dropouts.

The government could do those things, but they would both be terrible ideas for precisely the same reason your idea is terrible:  denying people their right to try to rise above themselves is precisely what the government shouldn't be doing.

Quote from: JimBobOzThe sense of middle-classed entitlement in this thread is overwhelming. Where's that commie droog when we need him?

Wow... I don't think we need him, Jimmy. We have you right now providing all the communism we need.


Consider: many of the poor... the welfare class, don't work at all, they consume resources from across the spectrum, money, healthcare, often housing is provided as well. And there are a lot of them.

The rich guy with the tax breaks? Sure, he's costing 'us' money by not paying his full share... sort of. Just like you don't save money of you buy at a sale (you save money by not spending it) not paying money doesn't actually cost anyone anything.  Here's the thing, other than a very small number of idle rich who inherited (and that money tends to shrink over a few generations, self correcting problem in the long view) most of those rich buggers are rich because they worked for it. Invested their money in factories and businesses... in other words they contributed to the society who's wealth they are now beneficiaries of.  The merits of their work could be infinitely tiny, but they'd still be infinitely larger than the big fat ZERO most of the welfare poor can claim.

So we have a guy dodging his share of the taxes, who produces something, vs the guys (as we can safely say there are at least 100 welfare unemployed for each rich fucker) who produce nothing and consume taxes.

Lets see. I have two buckets. One has a leak, the other does not. The one without the leak doesn't have any inflow. The one with the leak also doesn't have an inflow. Which one empties first?  That's right, the one with the leak.

So, the logical conclusion to your suggestions is that the teeming masses of dity poor will be allowed to work in those minimum wage jobs making your burgers and cleaning your toilets, but won't be allowed to spend that money on anything but basic survival needs - tobacco and DVDs are to be the privilige of the wealthy - and will be sterilised, gelded. I suppose a worthy few will be allowed to breed to keep the stocks up? You wouldn't want to run out of people to sweep your streets and park your cars, would you?

I think that deep down some of you like to imagine yourselves as the fellow in the white suit, sittin' on his porch drinking lemonade through a paper straw, rifle beside him, lookin' out on the big broad cotton field with the "nigras" singing.

"Why, they're happy that way, can't you see?"

Of course peeps could try to sort out the problems of poverty but it's probably easier to just legislate against the poor.

Quote from: JimBobOzI think that deep down some of you like to imagine yourselves as the fellow in the white suit, sittin' on his porch drinking lemonade through a paper straw, rifle beside him, lookin' out on the big broad cotton field with the "nigras" singing.

"Why, they're happy that way, can't you see?"

Projecting much?  Seriously, I haven't got a clue how you jumped from the fact that people who consume without producing are worse than people who produce but don't pay their fair share to 'you guys want to be plantation owners', in fact that is so alien to what goes on in my head that I can only assume it comes from some shit in your head. :raise:

Seriously. I work for a living. I'm reasonably happy with my financial straits. I've been poor, and I doubt I'll ever be rich. Sure, I wouldn't mind having a mansion and a yaght and bikini babes swimming in a pool yadda yadda, but your comment has about as much to do with my vision as cutting my toes of to see if they taste good would.  Seriously.

On the other hand, I have seen first hand the product of people who have without having to work for it. I've seen it in idle rich who have never had to work a day in their lives, I've seen it a lot in people who's every need is handed to them by the government.  There is no nobility in being poor, and while you can point to some guy who slaps away the charitable hand and bootstraps himself up, I can point to millions who take that money and then stick their fucking hand right back out and complain that you are still richer than they are.

Fuck you and your rob from the rich, give to the poor mentality. It neither discomforts the rich overly much, nor gives the poor a god damn thing, all it does is fuck up the rest of us working class slobs who have to get by somewhere in the middle.

Quote from: JimBobOzThe sense of middle-classed entitlement in this thread is overwhelming.

Quite. It's a bit sickening to be honest.

Who the fuck is anyone to decide whether anyone is fit to bear and raise a child? Especially some tit on an intenet forum about RPGs?

Quote from: SpikeOn the other hand, I have seen first hand the product of people who have without having to work for it. I've seen it in idle rich who have never had to work a day in their lives, I've seen it a lot in people who's every need is handed to them by the government.  There is no nobility in being poor, and while you can point to some guy who slaps away the charitable hand and bootstraps himself up, I can point to millions who take that money and then stick their fucking hand right back out and complain that you are still richer than they are.

Yup cos the millions of people who are poor deserve it whilst the rich are there because of the grace of God and their own sweat so the peeps with money should decide who should be able to have kids.

Shit man I was really trying to avoid such a crass argument but that's what you'r giving me. Fuck you and fuck the whole shitting Protestant Work Ethic that let you away with that shit.

James has a very silly thesis. JB pointed to it but I'll highlight it: assuming that you could, somehow, put James' plan into operation (and you couldn't), within a generation or two you will be running out of workers. In point of fact this is already happening to some extent in all the industrialised countries. Capital requires labour, and if it can't get it at the right price in its country of origin, it either exports the work or imports the labour.

So ethics be damned. It's an economic question.

More to the point does Spike actually see the peeps who made more money as the rightful masters who should decide who gets to breed? If this is the answer to the question I've asked throughout this thread I am very very scared.

Quote from: Garry GMore to the point does Spike actually see the peeps who made more money as the rightful masters who should decide who gets to breed? If this is the answer to the question I've asked throughout this thread I am very very scared.

Spike and James are just hegemonised, Garry. They see themselves as middle-class and they identify with the values thereof.

It's just tough luck that capitalism continually screws the middle class. No sympathy from here.

Quote from: Garry GI'm not even quite sure how you define any of your three examples so it's tough to know what you mean.

Since I've consistently said that I'm not defining the levels beyond an idea, that makes perfect sense. If you'll read what I say and realize that I keep repeating "I'm not qualified and I don't know who is" you might avoid herniating yourse;lf in the rush to reply to a thread you so obviously despise.

As to who decides, I have no fucking clue. If the idea was ever implemented (and it won't be) I'd hope that applicants were taken, credentials checked, and the best possible candidates amongst the psychological, criminological, and economical experts were picked.

Quotedenying people their right to try to rise above themselves is precisely what the government shouldn't be doing.

Having a kid isn't trying to raise yourself up. If that's why you're doing it you should probably be shot, or at least strongly warned against it.

QuoteI think that deep down some of you like to imagine yourselves as the fellow in the white suit, sittin' on his porch drinking lemonade through a paper straw, rifle beside him, lookin' out on the big broad cotton field with the "nigras" singing.

LOL. dude, I thought you were an intelligent and discerning person up until now.

QuoteYup cos the millions of people who are poor deserve it whilst the rich are there because of the grace of God and their own sweat so the peeps with money should decide who should be able to have kids.

Are you even reading this thread? First you miss my repeated statements that I don't have exact definitions and would leave it to someone who is qualified to make them, then you go off on some crazy tangent about things Spike never said. In fact what he said is that there are rich losers and poor losers. Nothing at all about God (or even Doug).

------------

Let's say we drop the monetary thing altogether and restrict the program to those proven psychologically unable or unfit to raise children. Psychopaths, gross sexual offenders, etc. Does that make any difference?

Quote

Quote from: Garry GI'm not even quite sure how you define any of your three examples so it's tough to know what you mean.

Since I've consistently said that I'm not defining the levels beyond an idea, that makes perfect sense. If you'll read what I say and realize that I keep repeating "I'm not qualified and I don't know who is" you might avoid herniating yourse;lf in the rush to reply to a thread you so obviously despise.

As to who decides, I have no fucking clue. If the idea was ever implemented (and it won't be) I'd hope that applicants were taken, credentials checked, and the best possible candidates amongst the psychological, criminological, and economical experts were picked.

Quotedenying people their right to try to rise above themselves is precisely what the government shouldn't be doing.

Having a kid isn't trying to raise yourself up. If that's why you're doing it you should probably be shot, or at least strongly warned against it.

QuoteI think that deep down some of you like to imagine yourselves as the fellow in the white suit, sittin' on his porch drinking lemonade through a paper straw, rifle beside him, lookin' out on the big broad cotton field with the "nigras" singing.

LOL. dude, I thought you were an intelligent and discerning person up until now.

QuoteYup cos the millions of people who are poor deserve it whilst the rich are there because of the grace of God and their own sweat so the peeps with money should decide who should be able to have kids.

Are you even reading this thread? First you miss my repeated statements that I don't have exact definitions and would leave it to someone who is qualified to make them, then you go off on some crazy tangent about things Spike never said. In fact what he said is that there are rich losers and poor losers. Nothing at all about God (or even Doug).

QuoteThey see themselves as middle-class and they identify with the values thereof.

Really? Nobody has ever shown me a list of values of the middle class. Do you have one I can look at? I might agree with them, but I'd at least like to see them first.

I do admit that I see myself as middle class. I'm neither poor nor rich, so don't have much choice.

------------

Let's say we drop the monetary thing altogether and restrict the program to those proven psychologically unable or unfit to raise children. Psychopaths, gross sexual offenders, etc. Does that make any difference?

Feel the warm glow of positivism.

Quote from: James McMurrayLet's say we drop the monetary thing altogether and restrict the program to those proven psychologically unable or unfit to raise children. Psychopaths, gross sexual offenders, etc. Does that make any difference?

That's a change from your starting position. Why did you start with such
a ridiculous position?

Also, a programme?

Whatever that means. I'm assuming it means you don't have a list of middle class values I supposedly endorse wholeheartedly because of my middle class identification issues.

So you're full of crap, are we clear on that?

edit: crossposted, this was aimed at droog.

Quote from: One Horse TownThat's a change from your starting position. Why did you start with such
a ridiculous position?

I'm not changing my position, I'm asking a question. It's pretty obvious that most people think it's a horrible idea if some welfare moms aren't allowed to spurt out new babies. I'm wondering if it seems like a better idea if we restrict it to people that are more obviously unfit parents.

Hell, we won't even let child-targetting sex offenders live near schools, why the hell should they be allowed to home grow their own victims?

QuoteAlso, a programe?

It's called a typo. Perhaps you've heard of them? :)

Quote from: James McMurraySince I've consistently said that I'm not defining the levels beyond an idea, that makes perfect sense. If you'll read what I say and realize that I keep repeating "I'm not qualified and I don't know who is" you might avoid herniating yourse;lf in the rush to reply to a thread you so obviously despise.

As to who decides, I have no fucking clue. If the idea was ever implemented (and it won't be) I'd hope that applicants were taken, credentials checked, and the best possible candidates amongst the psychological, criminological, and economical experts were picked.

I don't despise the thread and I'm a bit freaked that you think I do. I just think saying 'I have an ethical question but I really don'y know what I'm talking about and have little opinion' isn't reallt a compelling argument for taking peoples rights away although your blind trust of any random government is sweet. If you want to have control of peoples basic biology please at least have a fucking agenda!:rollbarf:

You've made your point. I think it's immaterial, because I'm not discussing a plan but an idea. If you think discussing ideas is worthless and my argument is not compelling, why are you here?

Quote from: James McMurrayHell, we won't even let child-targetting sex offenders live near schools, why the hell should they be allowed to home grow their own victims?

We're talking about different countries but paedophiles aren't allowed near any children here including their own biological ones.

Quote from: James McMurrayWhatever that means. I'm assuming it means you don't have a list of middle class values I supposedly endorse wholeheartedly because of my middle class identification issues.

So you're full of crap, are we clear on that?

edit: crossposted, this was aimed at droog.

Let's examine this view about vetting poor people. For a start, it shows you have no concept of how capitalism works. People who identify with the working class are naturally horrified at your suggestion, as they see themselves having to get a baby licence one day. Capitalists will simply laugh – as if that's on the agenda! The middle classes will quibble about 'values' till the cows come home.

So there you are, caught between labour and capital. Actually you're an exploited worker like all the rest of us, but you don't like that side; because you managed to crawl out of it in your view.

I've got some more, but not for this thread.

Quote from: James McMurrayYou've made your point. I think it's immaterial, because I'm not discussing a plan but an idea. If you think discussing ideas is worthless and my argument is not compelling, why are you here?

Because I don't understand how somebody could claim to have a stance on something so invasive to every part of our respective societies without considering to whom it would be implemented even before looking at the effects. You're acting like it's an idea that's plucked out of thin air with no agenda behind it and I frankly doubt you.

Tell me who you're going to sterilise or tell me who you're going to let sterilise people that's all I want. You want an ethical argument take an ethical stance.

Quote from: James McMurrayIt's pretty obvious that most people think it's a horrible idea if some welfare moms aren't allowed to spurt out new babies.

Spurt? These are people we are talking about.

QuoteIt's called a typo. Perhaps you've heard of them? :)

Blah de blah :D

You know, something about this thread just makes me keep thinking of a certain other modest proposal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modest_Proposal) for controlling the population of the poor.

I believe that children are our future.

• Teach them well and let them lead the way.
  
• Show them all the beauty they possess inside.
  
• Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
  

Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be

   I decided, long ago ...

Yeah.  That's stuck in my head now.

   ... never to walk in anyone's shadow ...

Thank you for that Stuart.  Thank you straight to HELL. :mad: :D

Ideally, I would force a worldwide moratorium on childbirth until there wasn't a single kid left to adopt.

In pragmatic terms, however, there's a very simple reason why there isn't a single country in the world I know of that pre-emptively restricts childbirth over the issue of "parental worthiness" (lots of countries do so after the fact of course, and China restricts childbirth over population issues, but that's neither here nor there).  Simply put, there's never been an effective way to determine what would work and what wouldn't, and no effective way to enforce such a thing outside of mass-sterlizations (something that goes against not just cultural taboos but basic human instincts, which is why even in the rare instances that governments have attempted small-scale versions of this sort of thing, its been done with secrecy).  Its simply impractical.

RPGPundit

And for that, the Lord make us truly thankful.

Quote from: Garry GWe're talking about different countries but paedophiles aren't allowed near any children here including their own biological ones.

Sounds good to me. :D

Quote from: droogLet's examine this view about vetting poor people. For a start, it shows you have no concept of how capitalism works. People who identify with the working class are naturally horrified at your suggestion, as they see themselves having to get a baby licence one day. Capitalists will simply laugh – as if that's on the agenda! The middle classes will quibble about 'values' till the cows come home.

So there you are, caught between labour and capital. Actually you're an exploited worker like all the rest of us, but you don't like that side; because you managed to crawl out of it in your view.

I've got some more, but not for this thread.

That's not a list of middle class values,. not even close. Instead it's another assignment of values to people based on their economic standing. Would you say that all blacks or all Australians hold a vertain set of values, or is it only ok when you pick the group to stereotype?

Quote from: Garry GBecause I don't understand how somebody could claim to have a stance on something so invasive to every part of our respective societies without considering to whom it would be implemented even before looking at the effects. You're acting like it's an idea that's plucked out of thin air with no agenda behind it and I frankly doubt you.

Tell me who you're going to sterilise or tell me who you're going to let sterilise people that's all I want. You want an ethical argument take an ethical stance.

I guess you just won't get it. I suppose we're done here, since you're asking questions I've admitted I don't know the answers to. you can continue asking, but I'm don'e saying "I don't know."

Quote from: One Horse TownSpurt? These are people we are talking about.

It's a turn of phrase. You know, a word used to make an otherwise bland statement colorful. If you got the impression that I think people are out there cashing welfare checks while shooting children across the room from their vaginas that wasn't the intent.

But there are people who have children for child support and welfare benefits. I know, my first daughter's mom is one, and she did it at the urging of her mom.

Quote from: James McMurrayThat's not a list of middle class values,. not even close. Instead it's another assignment of values to people based on their economic standing. Would you say that all blacks or all Australians hold a vertain set of values, or is it only ok when you pick the group to stereotype?

Are we offended? Don't you want to be middle-class?

I don't mind being middle class, although I'd love to move up. :) I do mind being told what my values are by someone that won't even back the statement up.

Quote from: James McMurrayI don't mind being middle class, although I'd love to move up. :) I do mind being told what my values are by someone that won't even back the statement up.

What? I analysed what you said. Are you retracting it?

You told me I identify with the Middle class. I said I didn't realize that, could you prove it to me? You responded without a list of middle class values. How does your inability to back your claims up equate to me retracting mine?

Did you get mad that the psychoanalysing of JimBob seemed to fail and decide to come value analyze me instead? If so, do it, don't just make a claim without the ability to back it up.

Here, I'll start easy. You supposedly know what my values are, so tell me: am I Republican or Democrat? Conservative or Liberal? Where do I stand on abortion, gun control, or that big fence they want to build in Texas?

If you can answer those correctly we'll talk a bit more. Who knows, maybe you are a master at knowing people based on a smattering of internet contact. If so, great, teach me. If not, quit making a fool of yourself pretending that you are. That is, unless you enjoy being laughed at. :)

Quote from: James McMurrayYIf you can answer those correctly we'll talk a bit more. Who knows, maybe you are a master at knowing people based on a smattering of internet contact. If so, great, teach me. If not, quit making a fool of yourself pretending that you are. That is, unless you enjoy being laughed at. :)

I didn't tell you what your values were; you told me what your values were. Laugh away.

I still think I've got JB pegged, by the way.

[Oh, and James? I've announced my political ideology loud and clear for those with the eyes to see it. Would you like to give me an analysis?]

Pegged? Dare I ask? [Edit: figured it out - first I thought we were talking about the topic of the thread, since droog had responded to my post, more or less]

No, I am not in favour of directly restricting anyone's right to bear children. Indirect restrictions like, "well you're in prison so no you can't have sex with your spouse, and no you can't have IVF," are fine.

If you want the birth rate to drop, improve women's education. It's the only method that's been consistently successful across entire societies. Of course, once the women start getting social and political power to go with that education, the birth rate rises again, as we're seeing in Scandavia. But I don't imagine that's really entered the minds of those posting to the thread in support of reducing birth rates.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAcross the street, there's a family of home-schooling, flag-waving, born-again Christians.  They just had their seventh child.  My wife and I both thought that was ethically wrong and selfish of them.  [...]  Our neighbors across the street, we're pretty sure, are motivated by religious and political goals to outbreed their competitors.

So, tell me this.  Whose children are going to inherit the Earth?

Quote from: JimBobOzOf course, once the women start getting social and political power to go with that education, the birth rate rises again, as we're seeing in Scandavia. But I don't imagine that's really entered the minds of those posting to the thread in support of reducing birth rates.

What percentage of those children are born to immigrants at the lowest levels of Scandinavian society?

Consider, for example, this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52672-2004Oct21.html):

"About 40 percent of Malmo's population is foreign-born or has at least one foreign-born parent. The bulk of foreign-born people come from the former Yugoslavia, Iran, Iraq and the Horn of Africa. Among school-age children, 50 percent have at least one foreign-born parent, and analysts project that the number will soon reach 60 percent."

"But Sweden's quiet transformation has not been without problems. In Malmo, the biggest problem is unemployment. In Rosengard, the most heavily immigrant district of Malmo, the unemployment rate is around 65 percent, said Jahangir Hosseinkhah, division head of the district's employment and training office, and an ethnic Azerbaijani who emigrated from Iran."

I'm aware that a substantial part of the Scandavian birth rate has been from immigrants; but a significant part has been from Scandanavian-born women.

It now appears that as women's education level increases, the birth rate drops; but when their social and political power comes to match their education at a high level, the birth rate rises again.

When they have no education and no power (as for example, immigrants from African countries), they have lots of children; when they have lots of education and relatively low political power, they have few children (as for example, women in Japan); when they have both education and power, they have a medium number of children (as for example in Sweden).

It varies from country to country and even more between individuals, but those are the broad trends across the world.

Just as educating young people about condoms lowers the abortion rate much more effectively than waving placards at them outside abortion clinics, so too does giving girls a good general education lower the birth rate very effectively, since mass sterilisation, putting aside its gross immorality and vileness, could only be carried out in a totalitarian state (for example, China).

Quote from: James McMurrayLike I've said several times, I don't have a working model. I'm not qualified to create one. I would support a working model, created by someone who is qualified. And no, I don't know who that is.

I'll volunteer, [understatement]though I suspect it may not be politically feasible[/understatement].

The goal is to reduce the world population* without the intervention of the Four Horsemen, or their new Squires pollution, ecological collapse, climate change and economic collapse. (Sooner or later Malthus will be right, and he only has to be right once.) Success in this endeavor will reduce stress on both the planetary ecosystem and on political systems.

Note: this will put considerable strain on economies built on expansion and growth; economic practices to manage shrinking economies while maintaining living standards will need to be developed. [understatement]I suspect this will be a challenge.[/understatement]


The Program:

1. Reliable, reversible, "sterilization". At least all females, but preferably all humans.

2. Sterilization to be carried out before puberty, say age 10.

3. Each female (but not males; her body, her rules) will get one reproductive chit, entitling her to one child. If said child dies before the age or 1 (or 2, or 3, or something like that), she may have another.

4. Said chit may only be used after the age of 25. (That's enough time to finish growing up and get established in a career. Not everyone will, but it's a useful ballpark figure.)

5. If males are also sterilized, the female will designate which male is to be unsterilized for purposes of reproduction.

6. If the restrictions are circumvented (black market unsterilizations), both parents will lose all parental rights and be permenantly sterilized [sarcasm]hysterectomies and castrations would probably be going too far[/sarcasm], and all children will be removed and placed with other families.

7. When population levels drop within the goal interval*, each female will get an additional chit to bring her total to two. Should additional children be required to maintain population levels within the desired population interval, any female wanting children after giving birth to two will be eligible to enter a reproductive lottery. Should the total population exceed the goal interval, back to step 3 until it again drops within the goal interval.

Optional, but recommended in spite of the fact they would be even more politically unfeasible:

8. Reproductive rights will be permenantly denied to anyone (this is another reason it's necessary to be able to "sterilize" males as well) who would have succumbed to any medical condition (excepting trauma), without medical intervention, before reaching reproductive age, namely 25, or at any time thereafter prior to wishing to reproduce. This should improve the overall health of the population, and would reverse the at present unregulated medical experiment in which historically unfit individuals (namely those who would have succumbed to childhood and young adult diseases and medical conditions, for example me) are able to reproduce. Medical advances, including genetic engineering, may make this requirement superfluous.

9. With the passage of time, the minimum age may be increased. This should improve longevity, although medical advances may also make this superflous.



*I'd guess 800 million to 1500 million/1.5 billion, but the actual number would need to be above the minimum necessary to support an economy large enough to support a space program large enough to get some people, or at a minimum intelligence** (sentient AIs), off the planet permenantly, and may well be significantly higher.

**(Caveat: this is analogy, not teleology.) Life wants to spread, so it covers the earth. It now needs to get off the planet to spread, so it "invents" intelligence. Intelligent life may enable life to spread off the planet and out of the system. It may also invent machine intelligence, which can "survive" in conditions hostile to life, and more easily spread off the planet and out of the system. Either option is fine with me, but I suspect it will be both, separately and/or in hybrid form, or neither.

Serious problem, apparition...

by disenfranchising males you reduce them to second class citizens. Presumably, the goal for all humanity is that we are all legally equal.

Women get chits, men do not. Women decide which males get to breed, men have apparently no say.

Next, suggest that population can be controlled by simply reducing men to subliterate cattle working in menial jobs why don't ya :rolleyes:


Or to phrase it similar to how you did (her body, her choice)

For men: His sperm, his choice.  Or rather, his genetic data, his choice.  This, by the way, gives each member of a couple a chit, and thus you get two children per pairing, making for a very slow decline in population, rather than the more drastic generational halving on one chit per couple, thus less need for corrective lotteries.

Of course, if you just reduced all of humanity to the level of beasts, I'm reasonably certain the world adn species would survive reasonably well for as long as the sun holds out, some few hundred billion years.  It's not very ennobling, but it's proven reasonably effective until you introduce an immature, but very clever 'sentient' species into the environment.

QuoteI didn't tell you what your values were; you told me what your values were.

QuoteSpike and James are just hegemonised, Garry. They see themselves as middle-class and they identify with the values thereof.

Liar.

-------

Lowering world population is only part of the goal. The other part is to avoid the suffering of children by not allowing people to have them that will mistreat them.

QuoteOf course, if you just reduced all of humanity to the level of beasts, I'm reasonably certain the world adn species would survive reasonably well for as long as the sun holds out, some few hundred billion years. It's not very ennobling, but it's proven reasonably effective until you introduce an immature, but very clever 'sentient' species into the environment.

It'd be even safer for us if we were reduced to a herd beast and used as a primary source of meat by a larger species. Look at cows. Those things are stupid as hell, but they'll flourish across the globe as long as man is alive.

Well...

Apparently in my lack of whatever it is you guys have that I don't, I missed out that you seperate society into more than three classes (rich, poor, in the middle) into at least four (rich, poor, middle, and working).

Since that is the case, I must hang my head low, suggest that my eductational background and income puts me solidly into the working class.

I'm not exactly sure what my values should be since no one ever handed my a cheat sheet to follow, but I gathered here that at least one poster thinks that a solid work ethic is a bad thing. :rolleyes:

I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between middle, working, and poor. Sure, I know where middle and poor fit, but what about working? Are those the poor people with jobs, the middle class people that have to sweat at their jobs, or what?

Quote from: James McMurrayI'm not entirely sure what the difference is between middle, working, and poor. Sure, I know where middle and poor fit, but what about working? Are those the poor people with jobs, the middle class people that have to sweat at their jobs, or what?

Would "white collar", "blue collar" and "underclass" be better labels?

Maybe. What's the Underclass? Is there a dollar limit under which your shirt color doesn't matter and you become the unders?

In any case though you'd be hard pressed to diagnose my values based on what color shirt I symbolically wear to work.

Quote from: James McMurrayMaybe. What's the Underclass? Is there a dollar limit under which your shirt color doesn't matter and you become the unders?

In any case though you'd be hard pressed to diagnose my values based on what color shirt I symbolically wear to work.

Underclass: we call them "chavs"; you probably call them "trailer trash" or "ghetto".  You might not use that actual words (I try to avoid pejorative labels myself), but I think we all know what we're talking about

Maybe it's a US/UK thing, but where I come from there's a huge difference between middle/working/underclass, even down to the way someone dresses or their accent/dialect.  Things like the value placed on formal education vs. life experience

Ah, trailer trash. Yeah, I was there for a while growing up. I definitely know the type. :)

Quote from: JimBobOzI'm aware that a substantial part of the Scandavian birth rate has been from immigrants; but a significant part has been from Scandanavian-born women.

The growth or the birth rate?  Do you have the numbers?

Quote from: JimBobOzIt now appears that as women's education level increases, the birth rate drops; but when their social and political power comes to match their education at a high level, the birth rate rises again.

I don't think that social and political power are the issue.  I think it has to do with whether children are an unbearable economic liability or not.  But bear in mind that removing the economic liabilities of children in a developed country are it not cheap and often involve spreading the cost of the economic liability to everyone, including those without children.

Your tone, Droog, is one that seems to suggest you believe yourself to have somehow transcended Class, and rings as pretty condescending.

In my opinion, I really don't think anyone can transcend class, though you can try to be class-conscious. Personally, I just think being conscious in general is a plus.

RPGPundit

As a voluntary extinctionist, I don't really have anything to contribute to the discussion beyond the fact that every time I load up Off-Topic I misread the title and think "Ethics of child beating? Wha??"

's all. Return to your argument.

Quote from: John MorrowThe growth or the birth rate?  Do you have the numbers?

:google:
These are statistics from the countries themselves, widely available and discussed on the web. Go look for them.

I tire of these online discussions where you say, "well, since an elephant is larger than a mouse -" and someone interrupts you to say, "ZOMFG do you have a SOURCE for that?!" It's not like I'm claiming that aliens from Zeta Reticuli are visiting us...

I also tire of searching up statistics and articles which people then don't look at; take for example my thread about bankuei's "broken gaming" - how many posted to that thread without having read the accompanying article? Why should I trouble to search out references others won't even read?

So, use google.

Quote from: John MorrowI don't think that social and political power are the issue.

Maybe you don't. However, that's what the Scandanavian women have said, and I think they know more about why they do and don't have children than you and I do. They say that when they feel comfortable and secure in their social position, that when their voice matters, they feel more comfortable and happy about having children.

That's what they say. So unless you're pulling a Ron Edwards or Freud and saying they don't know themselves as well as you do...

Quote from: JimBobOzThese are statistics from the countries themselves, widely available and discussed on the web. Go look for them.

Uh, I did Google for them.  Quite a bit.  The statistics I found either don't break out immigrants (sites touting how wonderful things are) or tell me that Immigrants and children of immigrants are having significantly more children than Scandinavian women (sites complaining that Muslims are taking over Europe).  That suggests to me that the story is more complex than the one you are presenting.  Since you seem so confident in your interpretation, I'd like to know the source of your confidence.

Quote from: JimBobOzI tire of these online discussions where you say, "well, since an elephant is larger than a mouse -" and someone interrupts you to say, "ZOMFG do you have a SOURCE for that?!" It's not like I'm claiming that aliens from Zeta Reticuli are visiting us...

The problem is that you are making claims that I could not find ready support for via Google, and my Google-Fu is pretty good.  I do try to verity such things.  Really.  But rather than tossing out sources that are clearly biased and will likely turn this into a debate over whether Muslims are taking over Europe (something I'm trying to avoid here), I'd like to know why you are so confident.  Knowing the source of your information will let me assess how reliable it is.  I don't think that's an unreasonable request, even if your answer is that you read an article in some source at some point.

Quote from: JimBobOzI also tire of searching up statistics and articles which people then don't look at; take for example my thread about bankuei's "broken gaming" - how many posted to that thread without having read the accompanying article? Why should I trouble to search out references others won't even read?

Uh, I read them.

Quote from: JimBobOzSo, use google.

OK.  Let me put this bluntly, then.  Plenty of what I found via Google tells me that you are wrong, but the sources in both directions (holding up Scandinavia's solution, on the one hand, and complaining about Muslim immigration, on the other hand) are biased.  

That's why I'm asking you.  I've looked.  I couldn't find what I need to assess the truthfulness of the claim (raw numbers broken out).  Maybe the problem is that I don't speak Swedish, Finnish, or Norwegian and that's what I need to find the right numbers.  Maybe the problem is that the statistics show something the officials in those countries don't want to deal with.  That's not clear from what I've read.  Both sides raise interesting facts that the other ignores.

Quote from: JimBobOzMaybe you don't. However, that's what the Scandanavian women have said, and I think they know more about why they do and don't have children than you and I do. They say that when they feel comfortable and secure in their social position, that when their voice matters, they feel more comfortable and happy about having children.

C'mon, JimBob...  what does "the Scandinavian women have said" mean?  Did you speak to them personally?  What was the sample size if it was a survey?  And let's not pretend that there aren't social and political agendas behind all of this that have a vested interest in these policies.  

Quote from: JimBobOzThat's what they say. So unless you're pulling a Ron Edwards or Freud and saying they don't know themselves as well as you do...

I'm willing to believe they know themselves.  What I'm skeptical about potential bias in your source.  If you read an article telling you that "American women" or "Australian women" all feel the same way about something, don't you get a little bit skeptical?

Maybe what you are saying is entirely true.  I'm certainly willing to believe that various Scandinavian policies and cultural traits make it a friendlier place for women to want to have children than other places.  It sounds like it should be true.  But others claim that immigrants are a significant source of births and that could bring the basis of your claim into question.  I don't trust those sources, either, because they gloss over important facts (e.g., many of Sweden's immigrants are from other Scandinavian countries).  So until I can find some unbiased statistics that break birth rates out (and I've tried to find them), I have to remain a bit skeptical of both sides because I get the feeling they are both hiding things.  If I had to guess, I get the sense both are trying to make claims stronger than the evidence supports.

Quote from: RPGPunditIn my opinion, I really don't think anyone can transcend class, though you can try to be class-conscious. Personally, I just think being conscious in general is a plus.

Absolutely. It seems I am talking to the unconscious, however, and I will be as condescending as I feel they deserve.

Quote from: James McMurrayLiar.

I think not.

QuoteIt's a quest to avoid having people give birth to children they can't afford.

QuoteStopping procreation in certain instances won't eradicate poor people, it'll just stop some of them from having children.

QuoteHell, if you can show me that poor peoples' children being a drain on society is a good thing I'll even drop the monetary prereqs and screen only for psychological acceptability.

QuoteYes it is. If they really want a child they can do what it takes to become worthy of the privilege.

QuoteYou can lump yourself in with the human refuse if you want, but don't try to drag me into your cesspool.

Clearly shows you see yourself as a better class of person than 'poor people' (working with your terminology here). It's classic petty-bourgeois ideology (using my terminology). There are other indicators, such as your awe of positivist science (let the experts decide) and your talk of 'contributing to society' (what exactly have you 'contributed to society', by the way?).

Other things you have said indicate that you are a wage-worker, rather than living off your capital. That puts you in the working class, but the values you have put forward here are strongly petty-bourgeois. Thus you are hegemonised. You identify with the middle class in that you fear and despise the 'poor'. You seek a scapegoat for the ills of society, like Nox.

There are many roads to fascism. Nox stumbles blindly along the lumpenproletarian one. You have taken your first baby steps on the petty-bourgeois one. Congratulations.

Quote from: SpikeSerious problem, apparition...

by disenfranchising males you reduce them to second class citizens. Presumably, the goal for all humanity is that we are all legally equal.

Women get chits, men do not. Women decide which males get to breed, men have apparently no say.

They can say no, they can say yes, how is that different than now? The only difference is women are explicitly given control over their wombs with respect to reproduction.

QuoteNext, suggest that population can be controlled by simply reducing men to subliterate cattle working in menial jobs why don't ya :rolleyes:

Is this based on text or just snark?

QuoteOr to phrase it similar to how you did (her body, her choice)

For men: His sperm, his choice.  Or rather, his genetic data, his choice.

It's still his choice, it still takes two to tango. One of the two just gets to decide whether her womb is open for business or not. Which is also the case now.

QuoteThis, by the way, gives each member of a couple a chit, and thus you get two children per pairing, making for a very slow decline in population, rather than the more drastic generational halving on one chit per couple, thus less need for corrective lotteries.

Since my objective is a dramatic decline in population, your idea won't work.

Quote from: fonkaygarryJames:  What an interesting topic!  This should allow for hours of autofellatio by our resident philosophers!

Thanks for remaining a sure sign that a thread is waste of my motherfucking time.

LOVE

FG :)

What kind of imbecile wastes his time posting on a thread that he has no interest in?:rolleyes:

Quote from: James McMurrayIn response to John's most recent question, I'd definitely prohibit people from having children if I could. I'd also be in favor of some sort of monetary prerequisite for having kids, to make sure that children aren't born to people that can't afford them.

So in effect this would be stopping the poor from having kids, while allowing the rich to breed.Elitism by any other name would sound just as foul.
How about making sure that there are no poor by sharing out the riches? Or is that too socialist/communist/humanitarian?
The outcome of not allowing the poor to breed would be an inevitable decline in the profits of the rich. The rich need a labour force and by adopting a selective breeding policy you have made that group of potential workers smaller.So I doubt that any major employers would share your opinion...but then again theres always a few eugenicist fascists hanging around to start the ball rolling towards goose stepping authoritarianism!

droog, you are a delusional fool if you read into what I've said what you say you're reading. Personally I think you're just being an ass. Welcome to the IL.

QuoteSo in effect this would be stopping the poor from having kids, while allowing the rich to breed.Elitism by any other name would sound just as foul.

Define "poor." My definition would be somewhere around "if you can't feed and shelter your baby, you can't have one." If that means that only the rich can breed we've got widely disparate views of what words like "rich" and "wealthy" mean.

QuoteHow about making sure that there are no poor by sharing out the riches? Or is that too socialist/communist/humanitarian?

Too unworkable, at least with America's "I deserve it because I'm alive" value system.

I'll say it again: we (America) already take peopls' children away if they cannot provide for them properly. Why should we wait until the damage has been done to step in?

And I'll say something else again: we can drop the monetary portion of the discussion completely. Does that change anyone's viewpoint? Is it ok to tell a repeat offendor child molester that he can't have a baby of his own to "love" and to "cherish"?

Quote from: apparition13They can say no, they can say yes, how is that different than now? The only difference is women are explicitly given control over their wombs with respect to reproduction.

Is this based on text or just snark?


It's still his choice, it still takes two to tango. One of the two just gets to decide whether her womb is open for business or not. Which is also the case now.

 Since my objective is a dramatic decline in population, your idea won't work.

I had to base my objections based on what you posted, not what you meant. You posted that women got chits (fine so far) and picked out the man they would breed with (not so good. Implies men have no say in the matter).  

A generational HALVING of population is pretty fucking dramatic. Personally, i'm all for it for a generation or two... sadly the places that need it most are not exactly complicit with our laws, morals or culture. If the US and Europe undertook this (needlessly, given the already declining native populations) then the... and pardon the clumsy term, Third World nations that already have insane population pressures will simply fill in the empty spaces as they continue to produce 9 fucking children per couple.  There is a reason violence is so endemic to certain regions: population pressure.


I'd rather see a stable population with a mild, controllable decline... as long as it's universal, rather than one population group (us, for lack of a better term) while another population group does not have similar constraints (them).

Quote from: apparition13**(Caveat: this is analogy, not teleology.)

You're not fucking wrong there, are you?

Caveat: I'm gonna talk the most tremendous bullshit I can come up with from so far right-of-field I met myself coming back, but as long as I'm making stuff up I'll post it.

GOOD. FUCKING. GRIEF.

- Q

I take it by "child bearing" you don't mean throwing a child in a pit full of bears?

Am I in the wrong thread?

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceI take it by "child bearing" you don't mean throwing a child in a pit full of bears?

Am I in the wrong thread?

-clash

Now THAT would take care of the 'population problems'.

- Q

It would seem that you are indeed in the wrong thread. :)

Besides, it's the mountain lions you gotta worry about. Well, some of them anyway.

Reproduction is the most basic right of any species.

Quote from: James McMurrayIt would seem that you are indeed in the wrong thread. :)

Besides, it's the mountain lions you gotta worry about. Well, some of them anyway.

Well, they don't have a population problem...

:O

-clash

Quote from: ZalmoxisReproduction is the most basic right of any species.

Species, yes. Individual? I don't think so. Or perhaps more specifically, reproduce all you want, but if you don't merit it, I don't think you should be allowed to raise those children, and I'd rather you not burden society with your kids.

Quote from: flyingmiceWell, they don't have a population problem...

:O

-clash

You'd think, but that population seems to be growing in other species. Most likely as part of a genetics experience on behalf of that portion of the ML scourge.

Quote from: James McMurraySpecies, yes. Individual? I don't think so. Or perhaps more specifically, reproduce all you want, but if you don't merit it, I don't think you should be allowed to raise those children, and I'd rather you not burden society with your kids.

Who determines who is fit and who is unfit? Is it economic? Is it based on genetic and medical criterion? How do you plan to police such an action? Where will the money come from to pay for the inevitable bureaucracy and enforcement?

Quote from: SpikeI had to base my objections based on what you posted, not what you meant. You posted that women got chits (fine so far) and picked out the man they would breed with (not so good. Implies men have no say in the matter).  

A generational HALVING of population is pretty fucking dramatic. Personally, i'm all for it for a generation or two... sadly the places that need it most are not exactly complicit with our laws, morals or culture. If the US and Europe undertook this (needlessly, given the already declining native populations) then the... and pardon the clumsy term, Third World nations that already have insane population pressures will simply fill in the empty spaces as they continue to produce 9 fucking children per couple.  There is a reason violence is so endemic to certain regions: population pressure.


I'd rather see a stable population with a mild, controllable decline... as long as it's universal, rather than one population group (us, for lack of a better term) while another population group does not have similar constraints (them).

I don't recall limiting the program to one section of the world. It would have to be universal, or it would be pointless.

Quote from: QuireYou're not fucking wrong there, are you?

Caveat: I'm gonna talk the most tremendous bullshit I can come up with from so far right-of-field I met myself coming back, but as long as I'm making stuff up I'll post it.

GOOD. FUCKING. GRIEF.

- Q

You don't think getting intelligence off-planet is a worthwhile goal? Or were you objecting to something else.

Quote from: ZalmoxisWho determines who is fit and who is unfit? Is it economic? Is it based on genetic and medical criterion? How do you plan to police such an action? Where will the money come from to pay for the inevitable bureaucracy and enforcement?

The only answers I have to those is "I don't know." I'm discussing an idea, because I don't have the smarts to come up with an actual plan. If something like this were to ever get the go ahead I'd want people with a lot more expertise than me calling the shots.

Quote from: James McMurrayThe only answers I have to those is "I don't know." I'm discussing an idea, because I don't have the smarts to come up with an actual plan. If something like this were to ever get the go ahead I'd want people with a lot more expertise than me calling the shots.

I think the problem with your idea is that at it's base level, it's unethical. I say a lot of things like that when I'm hammered.:p

I read the first couple of pages, and it looks like eugenics in sheep's clothing to me. BTW, neither of my parents was fit to raise children; I am glad that no one stopped them.

I was thinking about this and the problem lies in the idea that reproduction is a right. Reproduction isn't a right it's an innate biological process. When we talk about whether a government can stop reproducing we're discussing whether the government can perform a possibly invasive medical procedure on a person without their consent based on a problem that does not exist at that point in time and may or may not ever exist.

Quote from: Garry GReproduction isn't a right it's an innate biological process.

And it's a right

Article 16 (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

Or, if you live in Europe, Article 12 (http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#C.Art12)

Quote from: ZalmoxisI think the problem with your idea is that at it's base level, it's unethical. I say a lot of things like that when I'm hammered.:p

I see it from the opposite side. I think it's unethical to allow a child rapist to begin farming his own victims. If that means irradiating the bastard's sperm or whatever, I'm fine with that.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonAnd it's a right

Article 16 (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

Or, if you live in Europe, Article 12 (http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#C.Art12)

Ah, yes, because writing it down somewhere makes it so.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: SpikeAh, yes, because writing it down somewhere makes it so.  :rolleyes:

Yes.  That's what "human rights" mean.  What do you think those words mean?

I thought they meant "rights which all humans have" not "rights that some guy agree to."

If they're not written down do they not exist? If they are written down are they automatically true? Does that article 12 mean that we're not allowed to seperate child abusers from their children?

I didn't read far (because I didn't have to), but that first document says that all humans are endowed with reason and conscience. Writing that little bit down certainly didn't make it true.

Thank you, James, for handling that somewhat oddball question. I do believe I was momentarily stumped when I read it.  Not stumped because I didn't have an answer, stumped because I couldn't believe the question.

What does writing have to do with rights? Or is it an esoteric pun?

Well, I feel a little bad for not asking if Article 18 means I can sacrifice people as long as I'm practicing my religious observances of Tezcatlapocl.

To make it ok with EC's articles all I have to do is pass a law that makes being sacrificed to Tezcatlapocl the penalty for not offering oneself up as a voluntary sacrifice to Tezcatlapocl. :)

Serious question:

What do you think "human rights" are?

Those things which humanity is predisposed to have. They're precious few though compared to what you'll find on lists made by poeople with too much time.

Life: yep, that's your right until you do something to forfeit it, usually involving interfering with someone else's right to life.

Liberty: Go for it, until you screw up and then we'll snatch that liberty away.

Happiness: Hell no. The world is a tough place, and while you have the right to try for happiness, that's not a gaurantee. Too many people get the pursuit and the acquisition mixed up and start thinking the world owes them something.

Children: Nope. The "right" to forge future generations should be earned.

I can't really lay them all out for you, but the first three are the biggees that everyone talks about, and the last applies to this thread.

A-ha, here's our problem.  I think that my "rights" are the freedoms granted to me by virtue of being a citizen of the United Kingdom

There you go then. Looks like our basic difference is that you agree with what some guys wrote down about what your rights should be and I disagree. I think we can still get along (as long as you don't cross Tezcatlapocl).

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonA-ha, here's our problem.  I think that my "rights" are the freedoms granted to me by virtue of being a citizen of the United Kingdom

"A right is an articulated might."

Quote from: James McMurrayI see it from the opposite side. I think it's unethical to allow a child rapist to begin farming his own victims. If that means irradiating the bastard's sperm or whatever, I'm fine with that.

Well now you are speaking about specific instances. I personally would not have a problem with that, but then I am of the mind that anyone convicted of raping a child should be locked away forever unless they successfully fight the charge on appeal.

I could get on board with that, although I think locking them away forever is too much of a drain. Give em' X appeals and then toss them out the airlock.

That doesn't sound too liberal, does it?

Quote from: James McMurrayI could get on board with that, although I think locking them away forever is too much of a drain. Give em' X appeals and then toss them out the airlock.

That doesn't sound too liberal, does it?

If our system was one in which every tool available was exhausted for every defendant, then I would be down with that. Unfortunately though, "sex offenders" are often convicted on hearsay and circumstantial evidence, and I really don't like the idea of frying someone who very well might be innocent.

But locking them away forever where they may very well be sodomized until the day they die is ok?

Quote from: James McMurrayBut locking them away forever where they may very well be sodomized until the day they die is ok?

That's not the reality for child molestors. Most of them are put in areas with others of their kind or are locked up in private cells for their own safety.

Then it's being done wrong. More spiked dildos, fewer pillows. That's my recipe for child molester justice. :)

Also, source?

Quote from: James McMurrayThen it's being done wrong. More spiked dildos, fewer pillows. That's my recipe for child molester justice. :)

Also, source?

I used to work in conjunction with law enforcement and one of the guys from my office (in Louisiana) was arrested for molestation. I was told that's the way it works pretty much nationwide.

With any luck his file got mixed up with someone else's. Child Molestation is one of the few crimes I think is worthy of death by slow torture.

Quote from: James McMurrayWith any luck his file got mixed up with someone else's. Child Molestation is one of the few crimes I think is worthy of death by slow torture.

I agree with you totally, assuming they're really guilty of the crime.

Of course the assumption is they're guilty. If I ever suggest a punishment, please assume there's an "assuming they're deserving" attached. :)

Quote from: ZalmoxisI used to work in conjunction with law enforcement and one of the guys from my office (in Louisiana) was arrested for molestation. I was told that's the way it works pretty much nationwide.

Oh, it gets even better than that.  In the sex crimes prison in Avenel, New Jersey, sex offenders (including molesters) are not only allowed to have subscriptions to pornography but are encouraged to have homosexual relations with other inmates to help them have develop emotional bonds with others.

Quote from: James McMurrayDefine "poor." My definition would be somewhere around "if you can't feed and shelter your baby, you can't have one." If that means that only the rich can breed we've got widely disparate views of what words like "rich" and "wealthy" mean.

Too unworkable, at least with America's "I deserve it because I'm alive" value system.
I'll say it again: we (America) already take peopls' children away if they cannot provide for them properly. Why should we wait until the damage has been done to step in?
And I'll say something else again: we can drop the monetary portion of the discussion completely. Does that change anyone's viewpoint? Is it ok to tell a repeat offendor child molester that he can't have a baby of his own to "love" and to "cherish"?

Why define poor? We know what it means unless we've been on the planet Nox since we were born.If you don't know what poor means you really should be getting out more into the REAL world and not bother trying to derail this site into a right wing dingbats wankposting forum.
What you propose, stopping certain people you don't like from breeding is completely unworkable.Because it is exactly the same policy that the Nazis adopted. And a lot of governments don't want their citizens thinking they are Nazis as it would soon lead to some form of revolt.I am surprized that you proposed such a nasty idea that is quite clearly fascist.
Taking people's babies away from them is not the same as sterilizing them or aborting the babies beforehand. A child taken from parents who are, say, drug addicts will go into care until the parents can show that they are capable of looking after their kids.
Why should we drop the notion you brought up, that poor folks be stopped from breeding? It seems central to the fascist idea that only an elite of morally high folks are worthy to have children. Why do you wish to squirm out of the foul notion you so casually brought up?
A repeat offender child molester will most likely not be allowed to parent a child without supervision by social services ( at least this is my understanding of what would happen in Britain) . They may even have the child taken from them and put into foster care.
Are you trying to subvert this site into becoming a place to air your Nazi inspired ideas or are you trying to beat Dominus Nox for "Jackbooted Fascist Sad Wannabe Of The Year" award?

QuoteWhy define poor?

Because if it's going to be used as a condition in a law it needs a well defined boundary line.

QuoteIf you don't know what poor means you really should be getting out more into the REAL world and not bother trying to derail this site into a right wing dingbats wankposting forum.

Son, I grew up poor, so wander on and quit trying to teach your grandparents to suck eggs. :)

QuoteWhat you propose, stopping certain people you don't like from breeding is completely unworkable

Yeah, I know. Or did you miss the many times where I said it wouldn't work? I'm discussing an idea here, not laying out a plan for when the revolution comes.

QuoteWhy should we drop the notion you brought up, that poor folks be stopped from breeding? It seems central to the fascist idea that only an elite of morally high folks are worthy to have children. Why do you wish to squirm out of the foul notion you so casually brought up?

Because I'm discussing an idea here. If part of that idea makes a discussion impossible beyond the bounds of that section, then I'd rather drop that section and discuss the rest.

QuoteAre you trying to subvert this site into becoming a place to air your Nazi inspired ideas or are you trying to beat Dominus Nox for "Jackbooted Fascist Sad Wannabe Of The Year" award?

Yes, obviously that's it. It couldn't be that (as per the opening post) some people were discussing the idea in another thread, requested a new thread, and I obliged.

Did you have anything constructive to add, or did you just want to insult me? From your post it seems as if you haven't even actually read the thread, since all your concerns are either ufounded or have already been addressed.

Quote from: James McMurrayBecause if it's going to be used as a condition in a law it needs a well defined boundary line.Son, I grew up poor, so wander on and quit trying to teach your grandparents to suck eggs. :)
Yeah, I know. Or did you miss the many times where I said it wouldn't work? I'm discussing an idea here, not laying out a plan for when the revolution comes.
Because I'm discussing an idea here. If part of that idea makes a discussion impossible beyond the bounds of that section, then I'd rather drop that section and discuss the rest.
Yes, obviously that's it. It couldn't be that (as per the opening post) some people were discussing the idea in another thread, requested a new thread, and I obliged.
Did you have anything constructive to add, or did you just want to insult me? From your post it seems as if you haven't even actually read the thread, since all your concerns are either ufounded or have already been addressed.

Boy, you're not the only one grew up poor.;)
Why bother discussing a plan that obviously makes you seem more right wing than a closet full o' Nazis?
I had something constructive to add (All this talk of breeding rights is elitist Nazi shit) no matter what scapegoat it is used against. I've read the thread and wanted to come on it to give you a ribbing for promoting such fucking fascistic stuff. Is that okay by you?:p

Go for it. Just don't expect calling me a Nazi to have any actual effect on my behavior beyond making me laugh at you. :)